Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to BELIEVERS SEEM TO BE CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT FREEDOM IS
Ody
I am still lost as to how you think be keeping religious icons being built by the government anyone is "squelching of public religious expression", Unless you are trying to claim the government is the public. The public is not loosing any rights, if anything we are gaining rights by being shown that our government does not favor any set of religious beliefs over another.
I had a feeling that even thought hey had talked about the possibility of hiring us as regular employees that it was not going to happen. But it has given me a push to try and open my open store now, which I really think is going to be a great experience.
posted by
kooka_lives
on September 21, 2005 at 7:51 PM
| link to this | reply
kooka
I guess we could beat this one to death. I’m certainly in favor of the separation of church and state, just not the squelching of public religious expression. I’m sorry to hear about the work situation. I had a contractor friend here who moved to CO. but had to move back because he couldn’t find enough work there. There is lots of work here, but it is hot as hell and we keep having all of these storms.
posted by
telemachus
on September 21, 2005 at 7:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Ody
You are still getting public building and Government building mixed up. If someone wishes to post the Ten commandments in their office, that is fine by me. But to have a Court House openly displaying the Ten Commandments out front is saying that said Court House is going to be biased towards a certain group of religious beliefs above all others and no government building should ever give such an impression. Personal space is personal space, but Government Space is not suppose to be an area used to promote personal ideas in a way that implies the Government follows such things. Is it allowable then for someone to set up a TV in a government office for all to see and show a porno on it? That would be very much out of place by having one person show their views that some might find offensive in such way and at the same time if allowed would imply that the Government favors such actions.
I am not sleeping well tonight and am about to write a whole post on it. Got a lot on my mind and it is too hot in the house for me to be comfortable, but my wife is cold (Which is the norm here. She gets cold real easy) and so I do not want to turn the fan on in our bedroom. Since I am out of work right now, she needs the sleep more than I do.
posted by
kooka_lives
on September 15, 2005 at 10:19 PM
| link to this | reply
kooka
At the risk of being wrong, let me say that Judges are supposed to interpret the laws. Of course, if you’ve ever been in a courtroom, you know they do a great deal more. Judges are called upon to mitigate social disruptions and often need a firm moral foundation to succeed at what they do. Judges do much more than simply recite what has been declared law by our governing bodies.
I agree with the separation of church and state, but this had absolutely nothing to do with how one chooses to decorate the walls of ones own office or the edifice of a public building. The creativity of our architecture should not be restrained by public policy. We have no right to squelch the individualism of our public servants because of the whims of a few. You can look at an Islamic society to better see how an integrated church and state function. In such societies, laws are often based upon religious texts. I’m sure you’ve heard of Koranic law. In these situations the religion and the law are seen as one and I oppose this.
Conversely, I do not condone the modification of public buildings or the décor of a Judge’s office because of the whims of a minority. I should go now. I’m beginning to feel like I’ve worn out my welcome. I very much enjoyed chatting with you tonight. Sleep well, my friend.
posted by
telemachus
on September 15, 2005 at 8:05 PM
| link to this | reply
Ody
Right off the back you are wrong. Majority does not truly rule. I've been meaning to write a political post on that issue. Yes, Majority elects our officials and to some degree gives us our laws, btu it still does not rule.
And you are also wrong about Judges. Judges should fully and completely suppress their beliefs when it comes to following the laws. They should be straight out required to. Otherwise true justice and the laws of the land become meaningless. Religion has no place at all in the halls of justice. The best judges are going to be those who judge not through their own beliefs, but through what is best for the will of the people and what is right by our laws.
It is not censoring to say that the Ten Commandments should not be displayed in government buildings. It is separation of Church and State, one of the most fundamental ideas of our country. It would be censorship is they were not allowed in a museum doing an exhibit of Biblical times and such. You are completely lost as to what censorship is. We are not talking about keeping the Bible out of the public libraries. We are not talking about some great piece of art being banned from a museum. We are talking about items which if displayed in a government building would imply that said government favors one religion over others, which is unconstitutional and very much goes against my freedoms and truly the freedoms of every men, woman and child in this country (yourself included) even though many do not seem to understand that.
You really seem to be slot as to just what the issue is here. I have never once said the Bible should not be studied. I have never once said we should not be aware of our past. You really are trying to stretch the reality of things here. Government buildings are not the same thing as the 'public'. If someone wishes to put up a statue of the Ten Commandments in a public, none government building, then I have no problem with that. That is there right and their freedom to do such. obviously I do understand freedom better than you. once more you really only see things as black and white. This is an all or nothing issue with you. You can not grasp the reality of it because you do not understand the neutral of the universe, or the grays that really are what most everything truly is.
I wish you were not so blinded by you belief in God that you are unable to really understand the reality of the universe. Trust me, life is much more fulfilling and worth living once you break away from religion. I am thinking of writing a post talking about how my life was much more empty way back when at the time I did believe in God and how since then I have gained such inner strength and confidence in myself that I really am living a much better life and feel so much better about who I am. I was not really aware of it until I more and more debated with believers and have seen just how much better my life has become in the last decade and a half since I grew out of belief in God. I really have turned my life around thanks to no longer believing.
posted by
kooka_lives
on September 15, 2005 at 7:26 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka
We live in a democracy where a majority rules. Often Judges are elected. Their background and beliefs are relevant information for voters to view in choosing to elect them or not. Judges should not be asked to suppress these beliefs after being elected. They should have a right to hang whatever they please on their office wall and if it offends the public then the public should remove them from office. Similarly, if I place something on my office wall that offends the public, the public will stop doing business with me. We have to let some forces work of their own accord. When we start determining what can and cannot be displayed, especially concerning something as diverse as religion, we start to censor valuable artifacts from the public sphere.
Just because I might be offended by the naked statue of Zeus, does not mean that I have the right to banish it from the public sphere. The fact that the world is not flat does not give us an excuse to fail to learn that people once thought that it was. Similarly, just because the newest cult wears black, does not give us sufficient reason to don our judges in green.
My comments here are not to attack your atheism, but rather to point out to you that the fullness of life should be enjoyed, not suppressed, and certainly not suppressed in the public arena. Someone will always be offended by something and there will always be minorities. We cannot make everything generic for everybody. Life thrives in the midst of diversity.
posted by
telemachus
on September 15, 2005 at 6:52 PM
| link to this | reply
Ody
Why have a pledge without 'Under God' in it? Well you can still pledge you allegiance and loyalty to the country without having to pledge to God. Would you rather make liars out of all those who do not believe in God but are patriotic to the country?
But there are commandments that are faith based and so fall into being part of supporting a religious belief. By posting that first off it says the government believes there is a God and that we must worship him and hold his sabbath as being scared, those three things are the most important, for that is the way the Commandment read. That is against freedom and should at no point be displayed by any part of the government.
It is not supporting nothing. It is supporting freedom and the individual. We are saying man is smart enough to know right from wrong and able to value justice and such without the need of belief in a higher power.
Really I find that a belief in God makes life meaningless, because we are not free and nothing more than God's pets. Also, the idea that we need god to give us our rules is as insulting as it gets. Especially since it seems the majority of the people who break those rules are those who believe.
I never said anything at all about shutting them up in a box. I have no problem with putting them out there for all to see, as long as at no point is anything religious presented in a fashion which would imply that the government favors any kind of religious beliefs over another. It is not denying anything to say a court house should not display the Ten Commandment. By displaying them you are saying that those are the beliefs in which that court house is basing all of its judgments on and at that point you are saying that those specific religious beliefs will be favored above any others.
I ma always puzzled as to why believers are so blind that they really seem to think that without belief in God there is nothing. That is just sad and scary. My life is very much full and vibrant without believing in God. Atheism is very much the opposite of nihilism because we believe in the real value of living life. But once more this gets into the fact that you see everything as all or nothing (Black and white) and refuse to accept the fact that most things are gray. Atheism is as full and meaningful as any religious belief out there, because it is mostly what one makes of it and not the belief itself that matters.
posted by
kooka_lives
on September 15, 2005 at 6:17 PM
| link to this | reply
If we have to take God out of the pledge
then should we even have the pledge? I mean, if saying “God” takes away your freedom, what about saying the rest of pledge? Why should we pledge our allegiance to this or that government? And why must we have rules like the Ten Commandments? Heck, why not just have nothing?
The fact is that some things just make good common sense. We know, it makes sense not to kill one another. It benefits everybody. I don’t care who or what or where it may be posted, it is counter productive to oppose publicizing a common sense statement like: “thou shall not kill”.
What most people don’t realize about this issue is that supporting “nothing” is in fact supporting the belief system of nihilism, which contends that life is pointless and human values are worthless. To remove all semblance of morality from the public forum does nothing but promote this belief system in its stead.
Freedom is the ability to express yourself in public. Freedom in not being forced to lead some bland and generic life, void of historical wisdom. Post the sayings of Confucius on the walls, post the Ten Commandments, display religious art, let the likeness of the Buddha be seen, allow our expressions to exist out in the open so that we may critique them, and understand the nature of our past. Shutting these things up in a box and censoring the public forum is nothing more than the open support of nihilism.
Let us hear the voices of all who would choose to speak on the subject of religion, and then we may logically select the path we wish to follow. That, my friend, is true “FREEDOM”.
posted by
telemachus
on September 15, 2005 at 5:48 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka
thanks for the clarification. I went back and reread the post I got what I needed.
posted by
calmcantey75
on September 15, 2005 at 5:15 PM
| link to this | reply
cantey
What do you mean, what do I mean?
Why as an atheist do I feel I understand freedom better than believers? That is simple, belief in the Biblical God keeps people from being truly free. The problem is believers are not going to be able to see or understand this. That is part of the freedom they deny themselves. They can not see things from a point of view other than their own.
Why do I feel the other's religious beliefs keep me form being able to be as free as I would like? Easy, our laws are too often based on religious ideas and not what is best for all. We have too many moral laws that are nothing more than one group forcing their morals on others. Then there are the personal freedoms such as I talked about in the post. I do find it offensive that there is 'In God We Trust' on our money, because that tells me that our government favors a group of religious beliefs and so I am denied my freedom to have a religiously neutral government.
posted by
kooka_lives
on September 15, 2005 at 3:18 PM
| link to this | reply
AS an atheist I very much understand what freedom is and I find there are times where due to religious beliefs, I am not allowed to be as free as I would like.
what do you mean?
posted by
calmcantey75
on September 15, 2005 at 2:04 PM
| link to this | reply